Arizona assault rifle purchase by Goofy Giffords' husband triggers outcry

[Leroy N. Soetoro]

https://socialreader.com/me/channels/73210/content/9MfZ7?_p=trending

By David Schwartz

PHOENIX (Reuters) - The husband of Gabrielle Giffords, who with his wife
is a top campaigner for curbs to military-style weapon ownership, has
drawn criticism for buying an assault rifle in Arizona, a purchase he said
meant to highlight the need for gun control.

Former astronaut Mark Kelly, who with Giffords founded a new lobbying
group this year to curb gun violence, said it took only "a matter of
minutes" to complete the background check for the AR-15 assault weapon he
purchased at a gun shop in Tucson.

"Scary to think of people buying guns like these without a background
check at a gun show or the Internet," he wrote in a posting on his
Facebook account. "We really need to close the gun show and private seller
loop hole."

News of his purchase was quickly met with stinging rebukes from gun rights
supporters on social media, who called Kelly a hypocrite for buying the
gun in the first place.

"What a two faced coward you are Kelly - it's ok for you to own one and
protect your family but not the rest of us?" one Facebook poster wrote.

The group founded by Kelly and Giffords, Americans for Responsible
Solutions, is pushing for a ban on high-powered semiautomatic weapons like
the AR-15 rifle that he bought, as well as high-capacity magazines.

Giffords was shot through the head in January 2008 when a gunman opened
fire on a constituent event in Tucson, killing six people and wounding a
dozen others. She stepped down from Congress a year later to focus on her
recovery.

She and Kelly launched their gun control campaign in the wake of an
assault rifle attack on a Connecticut school in December that killed 26
people, including 20 elementary school children.

The group is also calling on the U.S. Congress to mandate universal
background checks for all gun buyers, and seeks to raise $20 million for
the 2014 congressional elections - matching the powerful National Rifle
Association's spending in last November's election.

Kelly could not be reached for comment on Tuesday. He told CNN that he
made the purchase to have "first-hand knowledge" about buying such a
weapon.

"For a weapon that's so deadly and really designed for the military,
especially with the high-capacity magazines, it is a pretty easy thing to
do, even with a background check," he told CNN's Wolf Blitzer this week.

Kelly has not yet received the AR-15 because of a local ordinance
requiring that the weapon be held for 20 days to ensure it was not stolen
or used in any criminal activity. He said in the Facebook posting that he
plans to turn it over to the Tucson police department once he receives it.

Doug MacKinlay, the owner of Diamondback Police Supply where Kelly bought
the gun, said Kelly was initially turned down when he walked into the
store several weeks ago because his identification was from Texas. Kelly
lived in Houston but has since moved to Arizona.

Kelly said he showed Arizona identification and was able last week to buy
a .45 caliber pistol and the assault weapon that he spotted while making
the purchase.

MacKinlay now regrets the sale. He told Reuters he would not have sold
Kelly the rifle if he knew that the $1,000 purchase was going to be used
to make a political statement.

"I would have told him politely that we would not be completing the
transaction," MacKinlay said. "We do not support his stance that civilians
should not be able to purchase assault-style weapons. Not by a long shot."

--

Barack Obama, reelected by the dumbest and most fearful people in the
history of the United States of America.

Eric Holder, racist black murdering United States Attorney General, still
has his job.

Nancy Pelosi, Democrat criminal, accessory before and after the fact to
improper vetting of Barry Soetoro aka Barack Hussein Obama, a confirmed
felon using SSAN 042-68-4425, belonging to a dead man.

Obama ignored the brutal killing of an American diplomat in Benghazi, then
relieved American military officers who attempted to prevent said murder
in order to cover up his own ineptness.

Obama continues his goal of disarming America after known mentally
disturbed liberal Adam Peter Lanza killed 20 school children and 6 adults
in Sandy Hook Connecticut on December 14, 2012. Every single liberal
inspired and authored gun control law in existence failed to prevent this
tragedy.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

[Winston_Smith]

On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 22:25:59 +0000 (UTC), "Leroy N. Soetoro"
<leroys...@usurper.org> wrote:

>https://socialreader.com/me/channels/73210/content/9MfZ7?_p=trending

>Former astronaut Mark Kelly, who with Giffords founded a new lobbying
>group this year to curb gun violence, said it took only "a matter of
>minutes" to complete the background check for the AR-15 assault weapon he
>purchased at a gun shop in Tucson.

Yup. How long to you think it takes a computer so say "criminal
record" or "no criminal record"?

>
>"Scary to think of people buying guns like these without a background
>check at a gun show or the Internet," he wrote in a posting on his
>Facebook account. "We really need to close the gun show and private seller
>loop hole."

I have never found firearms being sold for ten cents on the dollar of
what they are worth at a gun show. Criminals don't get great deals at
gun shows. They steal guns and sell them at the going rate of stolen
merchandize from fences.

[Ed Huntress]

The ATF expert on the subject says that only 10 - 15% of guns used in
crimes come from thefts. Most come from straw purchases.

--
Ed Huntress

[Richard]

Not intending to be argumentative, Ed, but "ATF says" carries little
weight with me these days.

Their credibility is in the toilet, if not lower.

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 19:25:27 -0500, Richard <cave...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

Of course. You'll believe what you want. <g>

Because some ATF agents and federal prosecutors screwed up on a border
caper, now you're discounting the experience of a guy whose job it is
to analyze sources of guns used in crimes.

'Makes perfect sense, Richard...

--
Ed Huntress

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>Ed Huntress <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

>The ATF expert on the subject says that only 10 - 15% of guns used in
>crimes come from thefts. Most come from straw purchases.

Ooooooooooh! The "ATF expert."

LOL

[Captain Armstrong]

Or they can buy them from one of Attorney General Eric Holders straw men.

[Captain Armstrong]

An expert in the government is a guy from out of town with a brief case.

[Captain Armstrong]

The government and that includes ATF have initiated over 2000 straw man
sales in AZ last year to supply the Mexican drug cartels. Why? To give
them an excuse to destroy the Second Amendment until they were caught.
Buying a semi auto could put a criminal out over $1000 after he pays his
straw man, leaving a paper trail and witness. Stealing a gun in a
burglary is free, and leaves no paper trail or witness.

[Ed Huntress]

Then look it up yourself. The numbers are consistent.

--
Ed Huntress

[PrecisionmachinisT]

"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:358ak8lmh9cans11l...@4ax.com...

You have more accurate information ?

[Ed Huntress]

Look, you lazy clown. The percentage of guns that criminals report
they obtained by theft consistently polls around 10%. Nearly ALL of
their sources are illegal and involve a crime on their part, so they
have no incentive to lie about it.

> Why? To give
>them an excuse to destroy the Second Amendment until they were caught.
>Buying a semi auto could put a criminal out over $1000 after he pays his
>straw man

Most of the "strawmen" are wives and girlfriends.

>, leaving a paper trail and witness.

What paper trail? You mean the 4473's? HAHAHAHAhahahoho..ho...

So what are you going to do, start by narrowing your list down to a
thousand or so FFLs?

> Stealing a gun in a
>burglary is free, and leaves no paper trail or witness.

Except you may get your head shot off.

--
Ed Huntress

[Captain Armstrong]

That's why assholes like you voted for Obama. You believe criminals. You
have some great sources. Why don't you poll some inmates in prison to
find out how many are innocent? They have no incentive to lie.
Yeeeeshhh.........what a marrooooon.

>
>> Why? To give
>> them an excuse to destroy the Second Amendment until they were caught.
>> Buying a semi auto could put a criminal out over $1000 after he pays his
>> straw man
>
> Most of the "strawmen" are wives and girlfriends.

Oh yeah and they don't have names and addresses, or ways to be located.
Sorry, I forgot that.

>
>> , leaving a paper trail and witness.

Everyone knows a girlfriend or wife is an untraceable entity, and of
course they would never rat out a boy friend or husband, much less
testify in court.

> What paper trail? You mean the 4473's? HAHAHAHAhahahoho..ho...

Wait until Obama sends his boys to knock on your door. Give them the big
"Ho ho ho."

>
> So what are you going to do, start by narrowing your list down to a
> thousand or so FFLs?

You really don't understand how that is done, or how easy people are to
trace after they have passed a check and their life is in a federal
computer.

>
>> Stealing a gun in a
>> burglary is free, and leaves no paper trail or witness.
>
> Except you may get your head shot off.

Do you know the difference between a burglary and a robbery?

[Captain Armstrong]

Unfortunately, I know too much about it already, and you are what they
call "sweet." Sweet believes anything, and is naive. That's why some
character on TV is named "Sweet."

[Richard]

On 3/16/2013 7:43 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

>>> The ATF expert on the subject says that only 10 - 15% of guns used in
>>> crimes come from thefts. Most come from straw purchases.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Not intending to be argumentative, Ed, but "ATF says" carries little
>> weight with me these days.
>>
>> Their credibility is in the toilet, if not lower.
>
> Of course. You'll believe what you want.<g>
>
> Because some ATF agents and federal prosecutors screwed up on a border
> caper, now you're discounting the experience of a guy whose job it is
> to analyze sources of guns used in crimes.
>
> 'Makes perfect sense, Richard...
>

No, it makes no sense at all...

Actions have always spoken louder than words.
Their actions make no sense.
If there were working within the law, I'd not say any such thing.

But to thumb one's nose (for rather flip the bird) at the House?
Makes me wonder (way too much).

Personally, I think Eric Holder needs a new state sponsored boy friend...



<http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/16/house-panel-tells-judge-justice-offer-in-fast-furious-settlement-grave/>

Quote:

President Barack Obama has invoked executive privilege and Attorney
General Eric Holder has been found in contempt of the House for refusing
to turn over records that might explain what led the Justice Department
to reverse course, after initially denying to Congress that federal
agents had used a controversial tactic called gun-walking in the failed
law enforcement operation.

...

In a January court filing, the Justice Department had reported progress
in settlement talks, prompting U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson to
postpone a hearing that had been scheduled for the following week. That
hearing is scheduled to take place next month.

Since that filing, Holder told ABC News that the contempt voted didn't
bother him.

"But I have to tell you that for me to really be affected by what
happened, I'd have to have respect for the people who voted in that
way," Holder said in the interview last month. "And I didn't, so it
didn't have that huge an impact on me."

[Richard]

On 3/16/2013 9:10 PM, Captain Armstrong wrote:
>
>>>> The ATF expert on the subject says that only 10 - 15% of guns used in
>>>> crimes come from thefts. Most come from straw purchases.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Not intending to be argumentative, Ed, but "ATF says" carries little
>>> weight with me these days.
>>>
>>> Their credibility is in the toilet, if not lower.
>>
>> Of course. You'll believe what you want.<g>
>>
>> Because some ATF agents and federal prosecutors screwed up on a border
>> caper, now you're discounting the experience of a guy whose job it is
>> to analyze sources of guns used in crimes.
>>
>> 'Makes perfect sense, Richard...
>>
> The government and that includes ATF have initiated over 2000 straw man
> sales in AZ last year to supply the Mexican drug cartels. Why? To give
> them an excuse to destroy the Second Amendment until they were caught.
> Buying a semi auto could put a criminal out over $1000 after he pays his
> straw man, leaving a paper trail and witness. Stealing a gun in a
> burglary is free, and leaves no paper trail or witness.

I really doubt they had any such noble cause in mind.

Slipping on my foil hat here, this has all the makings of a false flag
operation.

ARE they a government agency any more?

[Winston_Smith]

On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 20:17:06 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

>On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 16:36:38 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:

>>I have never found firearms being sold for ten cents on the dollar of
>>what they are worth at a gun show. Criminals don't get great deals at
>>gun shows. They steal guns and sell them at the going rate of stolen
>>merchandize from fences.
>
>The ATF expert on the subject says that only 10 - 15% of guns used in
>crimes come from thefts. Most come from straw purchases.

Criminals pay market value and buy at retail? Not sure I accept that.

[PrecisionmachinisT]

"Captain Armstrong" <mus...@macho.com> wrote in message
news:ki3f40$t6q$2...@wieslauf.sub.de...

Fill us in then, including verifiable sources, douschebag...

[PrecisionmachinisT]

"Winston_Smith" <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote in message
news:pnhak85tvllh5o767...@4ax.com...

Burglars steal guns and then they sell them...to who ever...where
ever...including to other criminals and so, yes.

[God's Debris]

More then likely they steal them but when someone asks "Where'd you
get the gun" it seems much more likely they will say "my old lady got
it" then "I stole it". I have to wonder why, if the ATF knows that
90% of guns are straw purchases, they are not prosecuting all those
straw-sellers. If I had to guess I'd say it's because they can't do
much with their criminal's statement that his old lady got it since
the old lady will deny it. It seems obvious to me any criminal with
an ounce of sense is going to say someone "got it for me" rather then
stating that they committed a crime of theft or burglary or whatever.

[PrecisionmachinisT]

"God's Debris" <hea...@dead.net> wrote in message
news:0tlak8lcf200q1iq1...@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 21:31:58 -0700, Winston_Smith
> <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 20:17:06 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 16:36:38 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>
>>>>I have never found firearms being sold for ten cents on the dollar of
>>>>what they are worth at a gun show. Criminals don't get great deals at
>>>>gun shows. They steal guns and sell them at the going rate of stolen
>>>>merchandize from fences.
>>>
>>>The ATF expert on the subject says that only 10 - 15% of guns used in
>>>crimes come from thefts. Most come from straw purchases.
>>
>>Criminals pay market value and buy at retail? Not sure I accept that.

Problem is you're lumping all criminals into a single group, as though bank
robbers, contract killers, and street thugs all used to be burglars,
thatused to only break and enter, stealing televisions and jewelry and so
forth, until finally, they find a gun and move up in life.

> More then likely they steal them but when someone asks "Where'd you
> get the gun" it seems much more likely they will say "my old lady got

No, more than likely, the gun was purchased by somebody...having someone
else do the actual purchase adds insulation.

For instance, I've had several guns stolen from me over the years

---then again, maybe I sold them, claimed insurance...no numbers...

[Captain Armstrong]

>>>> An expert in the government is a guy from out of town with a brief case.
>>>
>>> Then look it up yourself. The numbers are consistent.
>>>
>
>> Unfortunately, I know too much about it already, and you are what they
>
> Fill us in then, including verifiable sources, douschebag...
>

I wrote a long insulting diatribe and erased it. Look, we can determine
how many guns are used in a crime by the number observed by the victim
or retrieved from criminals who are caught. Only those caught with a
gun. NCIC can check to see if the gun is reported stolen. If it is not
reported stolen yet, or never reported but is stolen, does it count as a
straw man purchase gun?
If 90% of criminals are saying they bought the gun from a straw man, is
it to avoid prosecution for felony theft? Is that 90% of gun sales
ignored by law enforcement and never followed up? Where are all these
people who are buying all these guns for criminals and willing to pay
the consequences when the sale comes back to them? The last people
prosecuted for that worked for Eric Holder. People don't sell guns to
other people if they bought the gun under their own name. Would you buy
a gun at Walmart, undergo the check and then sell it to a stranger with
no bill of sale? Would you let a stranger put a package in your luggage
before you board a plane?
It is more likely that someone representing our leftist anti-Second
Amendment administration is trying to convince Americans that there are
two evils in the world. First, strangers are asking you to put stuff in
your luggage for them. They make it sound like a routine scam that is
done because they constantly regale us with warnings in the airport.
The second is radio ads advising you not to buy a gun for someone else
or you could go to jail (Eric Holder didn't) as if we do this every day.
The more they repeat it, the more the public believes it is a common
occurrence, and soon people will agree that nobody should be able to buy
a gun anymore to avoid staw sales.
TSA has already convinced Americans that old ladies in wheelchairs need
body cavity searches, and children need to be groped before boarding an
aircraft. They don't mention that TSA has never caught a terrorist, or
that their tests show that they can't find their own ass with both
hands. But...the public allows the humiliation because they are trained
to accept it.

[Captain Armstrong]

Mexico has diplomatic relations with suppliers of arms, like Cuba and
China, etc. They can buy directly by paying mordida to the officials
which is cheaper than buying in the US. Last year a truckload of AK ammo
was able to cross the border and disappear, in what suspiciously looked
like collusion with our govt. I guess they needed ammo for the thousands
of semi-auto assault weapons Eric Holder smuggled over to the drug cartels.

[Captain Armstrong]

Do then you already don't believe the supposed ATF expert who says 90%
of criminals buy guns through straw sales.

[Captain Armstrong]

Amen, very well put.

[Captain Armstrong]

So you have had several guns stolen from you? How many did you buy for
someone as a straw man? Does it match the supposed 90% - 10% figures
bantered about by the bogus ATF expert? For every 1 gun stolen from you,
you had to buy 9 and tehn sold them to criminals to validate the bogus
statistics.

[JohnJohnsn]

On Mar 16, 11:01 pm, Richard <cavel...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
> On 3/16/2013 7:43 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>
>>>>>> The ATF expert on the subject says that only 10 - 15% of guns used
>>>>>> in crimes come from thefts. Most come from straw purchases.
>
>>>>> Not intending to be argumentative, Ed, but "ATF says" carries little
>>>>> weight with me these days.
>
>>>>> Their credibility is in the toilet, if not lower.
>
>>>> Of course. You'll believe what you want. <g>
>
>>>> Because some ATF agents and federal prosecutors screwed up
>>>> on a border caper, now you're discounting the experience of a
>>>> guy whose job it is to analyze sources of guns used in crimes.
>
>>>> 'Makes perfect sense, Richard...
>
> No, it makes no sense at all...
>
> Actions have always spoken louder than words.
> Their actions make no sense.
> If there were working within the law, I'd not say any such thing.
>
> But to thumb one's nose (for rather flip the bird) at the House?
> Makes me wonder (way too much).
>
> Personally, I think Eric Holder needs a new state sponsored boy friend...
>

> <http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/16/house-panel-tells-judge-ju...>

>
> Quote:
>
> President Barack Obama has invoked executive privilege and Attorney
> General Eric Holder has been found in contempt of the House for refusing
> to turn over records that might explain what led the Justice Department
> to reverse course, after initially denying to Congress that federal
> agents had used a controversial tactic called gun-walking in the failed
> law enforcement operation.
>
> ...
>
> In a January court filing, the Justice Department had reported progress
> in settlement talks, prompting U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson to
> postpone a hearing that had been scheduled for the following week. That
> hearing is scheduled to take place next month.
>
> Since that filing, Holder told ABC News that the contempt voted didn't
> bother him.
>
> "But I have to tell you that for me to really be affected by what
> happened, I'd have to have respect for the people who voted in
> that way," Holder said in the interview last month.
> "And I didn't, so it didn't have that huge an impact on me."
>

Wondering why he has such an attitude?

Well:

Justice Will Not Prosecute Holder For Contempt Of Congress
by Eyder Peralta
June 29, 2012 3:49 PM

http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2012/06/29/147362920_12366447_custom-c3ff1803bca7f68cabad06e46f3f0e19cc884230-s4.jpg

The United States Justice Department said it will not prosecute
Attorney General Eric Holder for contempt of Congress.

"The Department has determined that the Attorney General's response to
the subpoena issued by the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform does not constitute a crime, and therefore the Department will
not bring the congressional contempt citation before a grand jury or
take any other action to prosecute the Attorney General," the Deputy
Attorney General told House Speaker John Boehner in a letter.

As we reported, the House voted that Holder was in contempt of
Congress for failing to turn over documents related to the gun-walking
operation "Fast and Furious." The White House has claimed executive
privilege on the emails and documents, saying they show internal
deliberation after the program became public.

The AP reports that this means Holder's own department will do nothing
further on matter.
As part of yesterday's vote, however, the Republican-controlled House
gave the Oversight Committee authorization to sue Holder in federal
court. That will be the next chapter in a constitutionally-charged
struggle.

In a letter to U.S. Attorney Ronald Machen, Republican Sen. Chuck
Grassley said the law is clear and it mandates the Justice Department
— and Machen's office in particular — to take the contempt charge
before a grand jury.

"It is not optional," wrote Grassley.

-30-

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/06/29/156002660/justice-will-not-prosecute-holder-for-contempt-of-congress

[JohnJohnsn]

On Mar 16, 11:41 pm, "PrecisionmachinisT"
>
"PMT", eh: are you "TMT"'s brother? <rhetorical question> :)
>
> <precisionmachinist...@notmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>"Captain Armstrong" <musc...@macho.com> wrote in message

Would you believe it if it came from "Uncle Sugar," PMT?

Well:

Table 8.

Percent of State prison inmates who
possessed a firearm during current offense

Source of firearms, 1997 and 1991
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total 100.0% 100.0%

Purchased or traded
from retail outlet 13.9% 20.8%
Retail store 8.3 14.7
Pawnshop 3.8 4.2
Flea market 1.0 1.3
Gun show 0.7 0.6
[So much for the "gun show loophole" bullshit!]

Family or friend 39.6% 33.8%
Purchased or traded 12.8 13.5
Rented or borrowed 18.5 10.1
Other 8.3 10.2

Street/illegal source 39.2% 40.8%
Theft or burglary 9.9 10.5
Drug dealer/off street 20.8 22.5
Fence/black market 8.4 7.8

Other 7.4% 4.6%

Source:
http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf
>
> douschebag
>
Great SigFile, PMT. <chuckle> ;)

[Gunner]

On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 22:45:24 -0700, God's Debris <hea...@dead.net>

Keep in mind that vertually every criminal is NOT allowed to own a
firearm in the first place.

Yet where the hell do all those career criminals come up with guns?

Few of them have "old ladies" to buy them for them.

They can be stolen, borrowed from another criminal, or even rented in
many cities.

I was a cop in the late 70s and early 80s..and I took a bunch of guns
away from felons..with none that I can remember that were purchased
legally...or by "strawmen"

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

[Gunner]

Of course we dont. The facts are well proven. And the ATF is well
proven to be lying cunts.

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 20:58:04 -0700, Captain Armstrong

Idiot. What do you use for information about criminal sources of guns?
Your crystal ball?

I see that Johnson posted some figures in this thread -- 9.9% for
thefts. That looks like the Johns Hopkins study.

The numbers for thefts are consistent across several studies. As the
gun nutz frequently point out, burglaries in the US actually are quite
low compared to, say, the UK -- for the reason I cited. Robbing a
house in the US is dangerous business. Acute lead poisoning can
result, since roughly half the homes in America have guns.

>
>>
>>> Why? To give
>>> them an excuse to destroy the Second Amendment until they were caught.
>>> Buying a semi auto could put a criminal out over $1000 after he pays his
>>> straw man
>>
>> Most of the "strawmen" are wives and girlfriends.
>
>Oh yeah and they don't have names and addresses, or ways to be located.
>Sorry, I forgot that.

How are you going to convict them? "Oh, that gun? Somebody stole it
just a week after I bought it."

We have thousands of stupid gun laws, and practically none that would
do some good.

>>
>>> , leaving a paper trail and witness.
>
>Everyone knows a girlfriend or wife is an untraceable entity, and of
>course they would never rat out a boy friend or husband, much less
>testify in court.
>
>> What paper trail? You mean the 4473's? HAHAHAHAhahahoho..ho...
>
>Wait until Obama sends his boys to knock on your door. Give them the big
>"Ho ho ho."

How would they find me? The NRA has made sure that it's so difficult,
they hardly ever even try.

Go ahead, tell us about the "paper trail," and about the requirements
to keep track of your guns. There is no paper trail, and there are no
requirements, in most of the US, to keep track of your guns.

>>
>> So what are you going to do, start by narrowing your list down to a
>> thousand or so FFLs?
>
>You really don't understand how that is done, or how easy people are to
>trace after they have passed a check and their life is in a federal
>computer.

What federal computer? You don't know the laws involved, do you. Ask
around. Or, when all else fails, go look it up.

>
>>
>>> Stealing a gun in a
>>> burglary is free, and leaves no paper trail or witness.
>>
>> Except you may get your head shot off.
>
>Do you know the difference between a burglary and a robbery?

Yup. Do you?

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 20:59:58 -0700, Captain Armstrong

>Unfortunately, I know too much about it already...

Oh, yeah, you're an expert. Tell us about that "paper trail." Then
we'll see what kind of "expert" you are.

It looks like you're an idiot full of b.s.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 23:01:54 -0500, Richard <cave...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>On 3/16/2013 7:43 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>
>>>> The ATF expert on the subject says that only 10 - 15% of guns used in
>>>> crimes come from thefts. Most come from straw purchases.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Not intending to be argumentative, Ed, but "ATF says" carries little
>>> weight with me these days.
>>>
>>> Their credibility is in the toilet, if not lower.
>>
>> Of course. You'll believe what you want.<g>
>>
>> Because some ATF agents and federal prosecutors screwed up on a border
>> caper, now you're discounting the experience of a guy whose job it is
>> to analyze sources of guns used in crimes.
>>
>> 'Makes perfect sense, Richard...
>>
>
>No, it makes no sense at all...
>
>Actions have always spoken louder than words.

So which actions by Jay Wachtel are you questioning?

My former bank, Wachovia, paid a $360,000,000 fine for allowing
billions of dollars of money laundering in Mexico (of course, they
didn't admit fault). Does that mean my teller is a liar and a crook,
and supports drug dealers?

ATF has been demonized by NRA and they've screwed up some of their
operations. But their gun-source data is supported by several other
sources.

>Their actions make no sense.
>If there were working within the law, I'd not say any such thing.
>
>But to thumb one's nose (for rather flip the bird) at the House?
>Makes me wonder (way too much).

So you didn't believe Ronald Reagan, either. That one I have to hand
to you -- I didn't believe him, either.

Go look for the data, Richard, and find out for yourself. Johnson just
posted the results on one study. You can start there. I think his
numbers come from Johns Hopkins' prison interviews. And back in the
mid-'90s, a Univ. of Pittsburgh criminologist did a really thorough
study like that, and came up with similar numbers. NRA quoted them all
over the place. But the age and type of guns used in crimes keeps
getting shorter and more expensive. You need more recent data.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 21:31:58 -0700, Winston_Smith

Go look. Guns used in crimes run the gamut, from worn Ravens that sell
for $25, to Glocks and Browning Hi-Powers, from Sig-Sauers to
70-year-old Pocket Positives with broken grips and no bluing left on
them.

One alarming thing that's shown up in traces is that the guns used in
crimes are getting newer and more capable all the time.

--
Ed Huntress

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>"PrecisionmachinisT" <precisionm...@notmail.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

According to the 1991 Survey of
State Prison Inmates, among those
inmates who possessed a handgun,
9% had acquired it through theft, and
28% had acquired it through an illegal
market such as a drug dealer or fence.
Of all inmates, 10% had stolen at least
one gun, and 11% had sold or traded
stolen guns.
Studies of adult and juvenile offenders that the Virginia Department
of Criminal Justice Services conducted
in 1992 and 1993 found that 15% of
the adult offenders and 19% of the juvenile offenders had stolen guns;
16%
of the adults and 24% of the juveniles
had kept a stolen gun; and 20% of the
adults and 30% of the juveniles had
sold or traded a stolen gun.
From a sample of juvenile inmates
in four States, Sheley and Wright
found that more than 50% had stolen
a gun at least once in their lives and
24% had stolen their most recently obtained handgun. They concluded
that
theft and burglary were the original, not
always the proximate, source of many
guns acquired by the juveniles.
http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 22:45:24 -0700, God's Debris <hea...@dead.net>

wrote:

>On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 21:31:58 -0700, Winston_Smith
><inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 20:17:06 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 16:36:38 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>
>>>>I have never found firearms being sold for ten cents on the dollar of
>>>>what they are worth at a gun show. Criminals don't get great deals at
>>>>gun shows. They steal guns and sell them at the going rate of stolen
>>>>merchandize from fences.
>>>
>>>The ATF expert on the subject says that only 10 - 15% of guns used in
>>>crimes come from thefts. Most come from straw purchases.
>>
>>Criminals pay market value and buy at retail? Not sure I accept that.
>
>More then likely they steal them but when someone asks "Where'd you
>get the gun" it seems much more likely they will say "my old lady got
>it" then "I stole it". I have to wonder why, if the ATF knows that
>90% of guns are straw purchases, they are not prosecuting all those
>straw-sellers.

Nobody says that 90% are straw purchases. Data shows that 11% or so
were purchases made at gun stores by the criminal.

The other sources are mostly secondary, including thefts, acquisitions
from friends, etc., so the original source is not indicated.

The "gun show" source is known to be a bogus figure, because criminals
tend to get their guns second-hand, and a gun bought by a straw
purchaser -- say, a girlfriend -- at a gun show would show up as
"family or friends" on the source report.

You have to spend some time with the data to understand it.

> If I had to guess I'd say it's because they can't do
>much with their criminal's statement that his old lady got it since
>the old lady will deny it. It seems obvious to me any criminal with
>an ounce of sense is going to say someone "got it for me" rather then
>stating that they committed a crime of theft or burglary or whatever.

Either way, getting it "from his old lady" is a felony for him, and,
possibly, for her as well.

Don't guess. Study.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

You don't understand how it works. You don't understand the law. You
don't understand the ATF trace procedure. You don't understand why the
original purchaser is basically indictment-proof in most states.

Regarding NCIC, there is no link to NCIC records from the ATF tracking
system. The only records that show up are thefts from FFL holders and
shippers, not from private gun purchasers:

"Only in limited circumstances will a firearm trace result indicate
that the firearm was reported lost or stolen. This only occurs when
the traced firearms was either previously reported lost or stolen to
ATF by a Federal firearms licensee or from a party involved with an
interstate shipment of firearms."

The entire system was designed to thoroughly bugger the process of
tracing a gun. And if you do get a successful trace, you usually have
squat. The original purchaser rarely is liable. All he has to do is
claim that the gun was stolen, or that he sold it in a private sale,
and his receipt then will have a phony purchaser's name and
information.

It's a dead-end if you're trying to track strawman sales from anyone
who has more than a clue about how the system works. They have to be
really sloppy, or really clueless, to get caught.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

Who said that? Cites, please.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

Too bad his facts are all wrong. Nobody claims that 90% are straw
purchases. And "somebody got it for me" is a felony for the guy for
whom it was "got," while it may or may not be for the "getter."

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

WHAT 90% - 10% figures? Where did you get that?

> For every 1 gun stolen from you,
>you had to buy 9 and tehn sold them to criminals to validate the bogus
>statistics.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 05:36:50 -0700, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com>

If they were stolen, borrowed, or rented, WHERE DID THEY COME FROM IN
THE FIRST PLACE?

From a legal purchaser, or from someone who passed for a legal
purchaser.

>
>I was a cop in the late 70s and early 80s..and I took a bunch of guns
>away from felons..with none that I can remember that were purchased
>legally...or by "strawmen"
>

I thought you were a part-time jack-booted thug in Fresno? Did you
trace the guns, or did you believe the criminals who told you where
they got the guns?

If you'll notice, that latter source of information is not
well-regarded by many people in this thread. Maybe you'll want to tell
them why you rely on those felons to tell you the truth.

--
Ed Huntress

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>Ed Huntress <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

>If they were stolen, borrowed, or rented, WHERE DID THEY COME FROM IN
>THE FIRST PLACE?
>
>From a legal purchaser, or from someone who passed for a legal
>purchaser.

Oh my God, Ed! I think you've stumbled onto the NUMBER ONE SOURCE FOR
ILLEGALLY-USED GUNS!

GUN FACTORIES!

We must shut them down! Now!

[chuckle]

[David R. Birch]

On 3/16/2013 11:31 PM, Winston_Smith wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 20:17:06 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 16:36:38 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>
>>> I have never found firearms being sold for ten cents on the dollar of
>>> what they are worth at a gun show. Criminals don't get great deals at
>>> gun shows. They steal guns and sell them at the going rate of stolen
>>> merchandize from fences.
>>
>> The ATF expert on the subject says that only 10 - 15% of guns used in
>> crimes come from thefts. Most come from straw purchases.
>
> Criminals pay market value and buy at retail? Not sure I accept that.
>

They did in the case of the notorious ATF fuckup last summer here in
Milwaukee.

<http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/members-of-congress-seek-inquiry-of-faulty-atf-operation-in-milwaukee-308jb1a-189126461.html>

Some of the "guns off the street" were bought retail in local gun stores
and the clowns aka ATF agents paid the sellers more than retail.

Plus they had a van broken into when a clown went for coffee. Three guns
were stolen, including a not yet recovered 5.56 M4 assault rifle and two
pistols. One of the pistols was SOLD BACK TO THE STING OPERATION!!

I guess I would give the "ATF expert on the subject" some credibility if
I knew of a case where the ATF acted competently and with integrity.

David

[RD Sandman]

Ed Huntress <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in

news:5g2ak8p6gvtemiqmv...@4ax.com:

> On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 16:36:38 -0700, Winston_Smith

> <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 22:25:59 +0000 (UTC), "Leroy N. Soetoro"
>><leroys...@usurper.org> wrote:
>>
>>>https://socialreader.com/me/channels/73210/content/9MfZ7?_p=trending
>>>Former astronaut Mark Kelly, who with Giffords founded a new lobbying
>>>group this year to curb gun violence, said it took only "a matter of
>>>minutes" to complete the background check for the AR-15 assault
>>>weapon he purchased at a gun shop in Tucson.
>>
>>Yup. How long to you think it takes a computer so say "criminal
>>record" or "no criminal record"?
>>>
>>>"Scary to think of people buying guns like these without a background
>>>check at a gun show or the Internet," he wrote in a posting on his
>>>Facebook account. "We really need to close the gun show and private
>>>seller loop hole."
>>

>>I have never found firearms being sold for ten cents on the dollar of
>>what they are worth at a gun show. Criminals don't get great deals at
>>gun shows. They steal guns and sell them at the going rate of stolen
>>merchandize from fences.
>
> The ATF expert on the subject says that only 10 - 15% of guns used in
> crimes come from thefts. Most come from straw purchases.
>

If it is straw purchases, the ATF is certainly up to speed on them after
running Wide Receiver and Fast & Furious. ;)

Anyway, here is what the last government figures I have show:

Percent of State inmates
possessing a firearm
Source of gun 1997 1991
Total 100.0% 100.0%
Purchased from -- 13.9 20.8

Retail store 8.3 14.7
Pawnshop 3.8 4.2
Flea market 1.0 1.3
Gun show 0.7 0.6

Friends or family 39.6 33.8
Street/illegal source 39.2 40.8

http://bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/fuo.txt

If you have newer ones, please let me know.

BTW, the most information I have seen on what the ATF knows or does is in
the Inspector General's report on Operation Gunwalker which covers both
Wide Reciever under Bush and Fast & Furious under Obama.

http://tinyurl.com/9stury9

--
Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman

Those who can laugh without cause have either
found the true meaning of happiness.....
Or have gone stark raving mad.

[RD Sandman]

Ed Huntress <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in

news:hl9ak8pqkql4m5hrl...@4ax.com:

> On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 19:10:23 -0700, Captain Armstrong
> <mus...@macho.com> wrote:
>
>>On 03/16/2013 05:43 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>> On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 19:25:27 -0500, Richard<cave...@earthlink.net>
>>> wrote:

>>>
>>>> On 3/16/2013 7:17 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 16:36:38 -0700, Winston_Smith
>>>>> <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 22:25:59 +0000 (UTC), "Leroy N. Soetoro"
>>>>>> <leroys...@usurper.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://socialreader.com/me/channels/73210/content/9MfZ7?_p=trend
>>>>>>> ing Former astronaut Mark Kelly, who with Giffords founded a new
>>>>>>> lobbying group this year to curb gun violence, said it took only
>>>>>>> "a matter of minutes" to complete the background check for the
>>>>>>> AR-15 assault weapon he purchased at a gun shop in Tucson.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yup. How long to you think it takes a computer so say "criminal
>>>>>> record" or "no criminal record"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Scary to think of people buying guns like these without a
>>>>>>> background check at a gun show or the Internet," he wrote in a
>>>>>>> posting on his Facebook account. "We really need to close the
>>>>>>> gun show and private seller loop hole."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have never found firearms being sold for ten cents on the
>>>>>> dollar of what they are worth at a gun show. Criminals don't get
>>>>>> great deals at gun shows. They steal guns and sell them at the
>>>>>> going rate of stolen merchandize from fences.
>>>>>
>>>>> The ATF expert on the subject says that only 10 - 15% of guns used
>>>>> in crimes come from thefts. Most come from straw purchases.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>

>>>> Not intending to be argumentative, Ed, but "ATF says" carries
>>>> little weight with me these days.
>>>>
>>>> Their credibility is in the toilet, if not lower.
>>>
>>> Of course. You'll believe what you want.<g>
>>>
>>> Because some ATF agents and federal prosecutors screwed up on a
>>> border caper, now you're discounting the experience of a guy whose
>>> job it is to analyze sources of guns used in crimes.
>>>
>>> 'Makes perfect sense, Richard...
>>>

>>The government and that includes ATF have initiated over 2000 straw
>>man sales in AZ last year to supply the Mexican drug cartels.
>
> Look, you lazy clown. The percentage of guns that criminals report
> they obtained by theft consistently polls around 10%. Nearly ALL of
> their sources are illegal and involve a crime on their part, so they
> have no incentive to lie about it.

Then you won't have any problem with this study by the DOJ which shows
different percentages that your ATF guy.

http://bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/fuo.txt

>> Why? To give
>>them an excuse to destroy the Second Amendment until they were caught.
>>Buying a semi auto could put a criminal out over $1000 after he pays
>>his straw man
>
> Most of the "strawmen" are wives and girlfriends.

Yep, friends and family.

>>, leaving a paper trail and witness.
>

> What paper trail? You mean the 4473's? HAHAHAHAhahahoho..ho...
>

> So what are you going to do, start by narrowing your list down to a
> thousand or so FFLs?

If you have the serial number, you have the gun......
If you have the gun, you probably also have the perp...

>> Stealing a gun in a
>>burglary is free, and leaves no paper trail or witness.
>
> Except you may get your head shot off.
>

[RD Sandman]

Ed Huntress <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in

news:tbfbk81drg3ql5t1a...@4ax.com:

In Tucson, AZ, for example, a couple of years ago, there were eleven home
invasions. Four of them proved fatal for at least one of the invaders.

>>>> Why? To give
>>>> them an excuse to destroy the Second Amendment until they were
>>>> caught. Buying a semi auto could put a criminal out over $1000
>>>> after he pays his straw man
>>>
>>> Most of the "strawmen" are wives and girlfriends.
>>
>>Oh yeah and they don't have names and addresses, or ways to be
>>located. Sorry, I forgot that.
>
> How are you going to convict them? "Oh, that gun? Somebody stole it
> just a week after I bought it."
>
> We have thousands of stupid gun laws, and practically none that would
> do some good.

That depends on what you wish them to do.

IMHO, aiming many of the gun laws being proposed at the honest gun owner
is like trying to develop a pill for men to relieve menstrual cramps.

>>>> , leaving a paper trail and witness.
>>
>>Everyone knows a girlfriend or wife is an untraceable entity, and of
>>course they would never rat out a boy friend or husband, much less
>>testify in court.
>>
>>> What paper trail? You mean the 4473's? HAHAHAHAhahahoho..ho...
>>
>>Wait until Obama sends his boys to knock on your door. Give them the
>>big "Ho ho ho."
>
> How would they find me? The NRA has made sure that it's so difficult,
> they hardly ever even try.

What the NRA is doing in that regard, I fully support. I am flat out
against a registration database. It is no one's business whether or not
I own a firearm or how many unless I have been convicted of a felony and
become a prohibited possessor.

> Go ahead, tell us about the "paper trail," and about the requirements
> to keep track of your guns. There is no paper trail, and there are no
> requirements, in most of the US, to keep track of your guns.

The paper trail ends at the first legal purchaser from the dealer.

>>> So what are you going to do, start by narrowing your list down to a
>>> thousand or so FFLs?
>>
>>You really don't understand how that is done, or how easy people are
>>to trace after they have passed a check and their life is in a federal
>>computer.
>
> What federal computer? You don't know the laws involved, do you. Ask
> around. Or, when all else fails, go look it up.

Tiahrt amendment.

>>>> Stealing a gun in a
>>>> burglary is free, and leaves no paper trail or witness.
>>>
>>> Except you may get your head shot off.
>>
>>Do you know the difference between a burglary and a robbery?
>
> Yup. Do you?
>



--

[Captain Armstrong]

Ed, you just keep drinking the grape Kool-Ade. Once you started
believing Obama and Holder, you lost credibility as well as what
remained of your mind.

[Captain Armstrong]

The system is just fine Ed. You are repeating what I told you. You have
no idea who stole a gun, or who has purchased a gun, except when you
find a gun and match the serial numbers. This is how we know that the
guns Eric Holder smuggled and sold to the Mexican drug cartels were
straw man purchases and traced back to his straw men. That and the
whistle blowers were how it traced back to Holder. As for stolen guns,
they must be reported as stolen with a serial number.
Interviewing convicts in prison is not a valid research tool when asking
weighted questions that carry an incentive.
As far as straw man sales not being traceable. They are traceable to the
person who originally bought the gun. But like all inanimate objects,
guns don't kill people, people kill people.
But you are right, it makes very little sense to make people register
guns or the sale of guns. It is better to apprehend criminals and allow
honest people to defend themselves when necessary.

In 1935 Adolph Hitler said, "For the first time, a civilized nation has
full gun registration, our streets will be safer, our police more
efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future."

[JohnJohnsn]

Uh, Ed: not only does the ATF have access to the FBI's National Crime
Information Center (NCIC) computer database, they use it quite
frequently, including placing information ON the database.

>
>"Only in limited circumstances will a firearm trace result indicate
> that the firearm was reported lost or stolen. This only occurs when
> the traced firearms was either previously reported lost or stolen to
> ATF by a Federal firearms licensee or from a party involved with an
> interstate shipment of firearms."
>

IOW; while the stolen firearm's information (including S/N) is in the
NCIC system, it may not have been forwarded to ATF.

>
> The entire system was designed to thoroughly bugger the process of
> tracing a gun. And if you do get a successful trace, you usually have
> squat. The original purchaser rarely is liable. All he has to do is
> claim that the gun was stolen, or that he sold it in a private sale,
> and his receipt then will have a phony purchaser's name and
> information.
>
> It's a dead-end if you're trying to track strawman sales from anyone
> who has more than a clue about how the system works. They have
> to be really sloppy, or really clueless, to get caught.
>

And exactly _HOW_ will a "universal background check" cause this to
change?

Since information entered into such a system constitutes a
"registration", criminals are already exempted from being required to
use such a back-door registration of gun owners under their 5th
Amendment right against self-incrimination (U.S. v. Haynes).

Therefore, "UBC" applies _ONLY_ to the law-abiding gun owners/
purchasers/transferers.

[JohnJohnsn]

On Mar 17, 12:21 pm, "David R. Birch" <dbi...@wi.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 3/16/2013 11:31 PM, Winston_Smith wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 20:17:06 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
>
>>> On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 16:36:38 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>
>>>> I have never found firearms being sold for ten cents on the dollar of
>>>> what they are worth at a gun show. Criminals don't get great deals at
>>>> gun shows. They steal guns and sell them at the going rate of stolen
>>>> merchandize from fences.
>
>>> The ATF expert on the subject says that only 10 - 15% of guns used in
>>> crimes come from thefts. Most come from straw purchases.
>
>> Criminals pay market value and buy at retail? Not sure I accept that.
>
> They did in the case of the notorious ATF fuckup last summer here in
> Milwaukee.
>
>http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/members-of-congress-seek-inquiry-of-faulty-atf-operation-in-milwaukee-308jb1a-189126461.html
>

This is the "Operation Fearless Distributing" I have been referring to
here:

“Explain how you make an innocent person `more safe' by disarming the
innocent persons, while leaving the criminal element fully-armed¹???”
--Also Me
[¹ Or in the case of `Operation Fast & Furious' and `Operation
Fearless Distributing', actually ARMING them!!!]

>
> Some of the "guns off the street" were bought retail in local gun stores
> and the clowns aka ATF agents paid the sellers more than retail.
>
> Plus they had a van broken into when a clown went for coffee. Three guns

> were stolen, including a not yet recovered 5.56mm M4 assault rifle and two

[JohnJohnsn]

On Mar 17, 2:14 pm, RD Sandman <rdsandman@comcast,net> wrote:
>
>
> Ed Huntress <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote in

> news:tbfbk81drg3ql5t1a...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 20:58:04 -0700, Captain Armstrong
>> <musc...@macho.com> wrote:
>>>On 03/16/2013 07:20 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 19:10:23 -0700, Captain Armstrong
>>>> <musc...@macho.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 03/16/2013 05:43 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 19:25:27 -0500,
>>>>>> Richard<cavel...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/16/2013 7:17 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 16:36:38 -0700, Winston_Smith
>>>>>>>> <inva...@butterfly.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 22:25:59 +0000 (UTC), "Leroy N. Soetoro"

>>>>>>>>> <leroysoet...@usurper.org> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>> https://socialreader.com/me/channels/73210/content/9MfZ7

>>>>> ...leaving a paper trail and witness.

>
>>> Everyone knows a girlfriend or wife is an untraceable entity, and of
>>> course they would never rat out a boy friend or husband, much less
>>> testify in court.
>
>>>> What paper trail? You mean the 4473's? HAHAHAHAhahahoho..ho...
>
>>> Wait until Obama sends his boys to knock on your door. Give them the
>>> big "Ho ho ho."
>
>> How would they find me? The NRA has made sure that it's so difficult,
>> they hardly ever even try.
>
> What the NRA is doing in that regard, I fully support. I am flat out
> against a registration database. It is no one's business whether or not
> I own a firearm or how many unless I have been convicted of a felony
> and become a prohibited possessor.
>
>> Go ahead, tell us about the "paper trail," and about the requirements
>> to keep track of your guns. There is no paper trail, and there are no
>> requirements, in most of the US, to keep track of your guns.
>
> The paper trail ends at the first legal purchaser from the dealer.
>

That's the reason for the gun control crowd's big push for all
firearms transfers to be required to go through a FFL dealer: to
establish a de facto _complete_ Gun Owner Database, which would be the
result of the "Universal Background Check" system they are clamoring
for now.

The old "cause and effect" thng.

>
>>>> So what are you going to do, start by narrowing your list down to a
>>>> thousand or so FFLs?
>
>>> You really don't understand how that is done, or how easy people are
>>> to trace after they have passed a check and their life is in a federal
>>> computer.
>
>> What federal computer? You don't know the laws involved, do you. Ask
>> around. Or, when all else fails, go look it up.
>
> Tiahrt amendment.
>
>>>>> Stealing a gun in a burglary is free, and leaves no paper trail or witness.
>
>>>> Except you may get your head shot off.
>
>>> Do you know the difference between a burglary and a robbery?
>
>> Yup. Do you?
>
> --
> Sleep well, tonight.....
>
> RD (The Sandman
>
> Those who can laugh without cause have either
> found the true meaning of happiness.....

> Or have gone stark raving mad.-

[David R. Birch]

On 3/17/2013 4:28 PM, JohnJohnsn wrote:
.
> And exactly _HOW_ will a "universal background check" cause this to
> change?
>
> Since information entered into such a system constitutes a
> "registration", criminals are already exempted from being required to
> use such a back-door registration of gun owners under their 5th
> Amendment right against self-incrimination (U.S. v. Haynes).

Registration of what? All that is registered is that John Smith wants to
know if it is legal to sell a firearm to Jane Doe.

When he has the positive results of the check, the sale may proceed. Or not.

No need to ID the gun or guns, or even if a sale took place.

David

[JohnJohnsn]

Apparently you "didn't get the memo" about the fact the FBI has
acknowledged that during the entire time they've run the NICS
operation they have (illegally under `Brady') kept the data they are
REQUIRED to delete; thereby creating a de facto database of gun owners/
purchasers.

The push for "UBC"; combined with the less-publicized push for all
transactions to go through FFLs; would ultimately create a TOTAL list
of all law-abiding gun owners, since ILLEGAL gun "owners" are, BY LAW
(to-wit: court decision), exempted from "playing the gun controllers'
game."

[RD Sandman]

JohnJohnsn <TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:eb7a4051-c426-42bd...@d11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:

I know so I have to keep reminding them that there are over 310 million
guns out there that no one knows where they are and I am not going to
tell them.

[RD Sandman]

"David R. Birch" <dbi...@wi.rr.com> wrote in
news:ki5gh...@news4.newsguy.com:

The dealer has to ID the gun as it is in his log and if that BGC is
extended to the civilian path it will probably be via an FFL. That is
the easiest way to do it since civilians cannot access NICS to run the
check.

[Stormin Mormon]

>
>> On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 20:58:04 -0700, Captain Armstrong
>> <musc...@macho.com> wrote:
>>>On 03/16/2013 07:20 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 19:10:23 -0700, Captain Armstrong
>>>> <musc...@macho.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 03/16/2013 05:43 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 19:25:27 -0500,
>>>>>> Richard<cavel...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/16/2013 7:17 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 16:36:38 -0700, Winston_Smith
>>>>>>>> <inva...@butterfly.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 22:25:59 +0000 (UTC), "Leroy N. Soetoro"
>>>>>>>>> <leroysoet...@usurper.org> wrote:
>

[christmas presents]

[Stormin Mormon]

So, what are the odds that criminals are going to call NICS for permission
to sell a gun to another criminal?

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"David R. Birch" <dbi...@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ki5gh...@news4.newsguy.com...

On 3/17/2013 4:28 PM, JohnJohnsn wrote:
.

[God's Debris]

I suspect the same is true of cars, hats, shoes, crowbars and pretty
much everything else that's used in crimes....

[RD Sandman]

"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61***scam...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:wOs1t.338587$ik4.2...@fed08.iad:

> So, what are the odds that criminals are going to call NICS for
> permission to sell a gun to another criminal?
>
> Christopher A. Young
> Learn more about Jesus
> www.lds.org
> .
>
> "David R. Birch" <dbi...@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:ki5gh...@news4.newsguy.com...
> On 3/17/2013 4:28 PM, JohnJohnsn wrote:
> .
>> Since information entered into such a system constitutes a
>> "registration", criminals are already exempted from being required to
>> use such a back-door registration of gun owners under their 5th
>> Amendment right against self-incrimination (U.S. v. Haynes).
>
> Registration of what? All that is registered is that John Smith wants
> to know if it is legal to sell a firearm to Jane Doe.

That is not registered in NICS. All NICS does is provide a yes or no as
to whether or not Jane Doe is a prohibited possessor. It also gives a
code to the dealer for Jane Doe to used as a reference if she is denied
and wishes to follow up on why she was denied.

> When he has the positive results of the check, the sale may proceed.
> Or not.

It depends on what result you consider positive. Many would consider a
non response to be positive.

> No need to ID the gun or guns, or even if a sale took place.

However, it will probably be done through the current process. In that
case, the FFL will have to have the purchaser fill out a 4473 and he will
process that the same as if he were the seller.

[God's Debris]

In looking at that I noticed that less than roughly 1.5% bought guns
from gun shows/flea markets. Seems to put the lie to the notion that
'closing the gun show loophole' is going to make any significant
impact on gun crime. Also at about the 2% level was the use of what
was called "assault type or machine gun" weapons. So again, the data
puts the lie to the notion that 'banning assault weapons' is going to
have any meaningful impact on crime.

[RD Sandman]

God's Debris <hea...@dead.net> wrote in
news:t7ock89rrd2ltkvic...@4ax.com:

Less than half that. That is two different studies....they are not
additive.

> Seems to put the lie to the notion that
> 'closing the gun show loophole' is going to make any significant
> impact on gun crime.

I agree.

Also at about the 2% level was the use of what
> was called "assault type or machine gun" weapons. So again, the data
> puts the lie to the notion that 'banning assault weapons' is going to
> have any meaningful impact on crime.

I agree again. When one looks at the relatively small percentage of
homicides committed with a rifle (and an AR15 assault weapon is still an
even smaller subset of that) compared to handguns which are about 70% of
the homicides, it doesn't leave a lot that an assault weapons ban will
fix.

[Ed Huntress]

On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 13:42:30 -0500, RD Sandman
<rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:

Your 1997 figures look like the FBI/Univ. of Pittsburgh prison
interview results. They're probably the best figures around but
they're getting old. BTW, that study included questions about what
deters criminals from house thefts: the answer was, the threat of
being shot by a homeowner. The percentage of direct thefts of guns
used in crimes runs around 10%. The ATF guy said 10% - 15%.

Johns Hopkins has figures from a 2004 set of prison interviews. I
think that's what Johnson posted earlier today. If you can't find it,
I'll look it up for you.

Keep in mind that the "friends or family" figures are largely straw
purchases. Some of the street/illegal source figures are, too. The
"gun show" figures are for direct purchases by the criminal at a gun
show -- it doesn't include the straw purchases either made for them,
or by a gun runner for later sale.

>
>BTW, the most information I have seen on what the ATF knows or does is in
>the Inspector General's report on Operation Gunwalker which covers both
>Wide Reciever under Bush and Fast & Furious under Obama.
>
>http://tinyurl.com/9stury9

Thanks, I read the report.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

Huh? It's exactly the same. That's the '97 study, which says:

"About 3 in 10 received the weapon from drug dealers, off the street,
or through the black market. Another 1 in 10 obtained their gun
during a robbery, burglary, or other type of theft."

That's 10% from theft. The ATF guy said "10% - 15% from theft." Most
studies show from 5% to 15%.

--
Ed Huntress

[David R. Birch]

I tremble in fear that the FBI MAY have a record that I MAY have bought
a gun.

David

[David R. Birch]

On 3/17/2013 6:27 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
> "David R. Birch" <dbi...@wi.rr.com> wrote in

>> Registration of what? All that is registered is that John Smith wants
>> to know if it is legal to sell a firearm to Jane Doe.
>>
>> When he has the positive results of the check, the sale may proceed.
>> Or not.
>>
>> No need to ID the gun or guns, or even if a sale took place.
>
> The dealer has to ID the gun as it is in his log and if that BGC is
> extended to the civilian path it will probably be via an FFL. That is
> the easiest way to do it since civilians cannot access NICS to run the
> check.

Easier to change the NICS so any citizen can access it.

David

[RD Sandman]

Ed Huntress <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in

news:bkock85ho6veqd35c...@4ax.com:

ep, that is why I am looking for newer figures if anyone has them.

BTW, that study included questions about what
> deters criminals from house thefts: the answer was, the threat of
> being shot by a homeowner.

And the reason was essentially because the police have rules of
engagement to follow, civilians do not.

> The percentage of direct thefts of guns
> used in crimes runs around 10%. The ATF guy said 10% - 15%.

Yep and straw purchases would most likely be included in either the
family/friend or street/illegal categories depending on who was the straw
purchaser.

> Johns Hopkins has figures from a 2004 set of prison interviews. I
> think that's what Johnson posted earlier today. If you can't find it,
> I'll look it up for you.

I will look it up but not tonight. My wife's Parkinson's is acting up
and I am about to sign off.

> Keep in mind that the "friends or family" figures are largely straw
> purchases. Some of the street/illegal source figures are, too. The
> "gun show" figures are for direct purchases by the criminal at a gun
> show -- it doesn't include the straw purchases either made for them,
> or by a gun runner for later sale.
>
>>
>>BTW, the most information I have seen on what the ATF knows or does is
>>in the Inspector General's report on Operation Gunwalker which covers
>>both Wide Reciever under Bush and Fast & Furious under Obama.
>>
>>http://tinyurl.com/9stury9
>
> Thanks, I read the report.
>



--

[Ed Huntress]

Deter crimes.

>
>IMHO, aiming many of the gun laws being proposed at the honest gun owner
>is like trying to develop a pill for men to relieve menstrual cramps.

The laws aren't proposed "at the honest gun owner." They're proposed
to keep DIShonest people from getting guns.

>
>>>>> , leaving a paper trail and witness.
>>>
>>>Everyone knows a girlfriend or wife is an untraceable entity, and of
>>>course they would never rat out a boy friend or husband, much less
>>>testify in court.
>>>
>>>> What paper trail? You mean the 4473's? HAHAHAHAhahahoho..ho...
>>>
>>>Wait until Obama sends his boys to knock on your door. Give them the
>>>big "Ho ho ho."
>>
>> How would they find me? The NRA has made sure that it's so difficult,
>> they hardly ever even try.
>
>What the NRA is doing in that regard, I fully support. I am flat out
>against a registration database. It is no one's business whether or not
>I own a firearm or how many unless I have been convicted of a felony and
>become a prohibited possessor.

Ok, so when people are killed by straw-purchased guns, or from a bogus
private sale, we'll just start calling them "collateral damage." It's
a term we Americans have become quite comfortable with, anyway.
There's no reason it shouldn't apply to 6-year-olds caught in a
gangland crossfire, is there?

All in the name of protecting RD's privacy.

>
>> Go ahead, tell us about the "paper trail," and about the requirements
>> to keep track of your guns. There is no paper trail, and there are no
>> requirements, in most of the US, to keep track of your guns.
>
>The paper trail ends at the first legal purchaser from the dealer.

Yup. Captain Armstrong doesn't seem to realize that.

>
>>>> So what are you going to do, start by narrowing your list down to a
>>>> thousand or so FFLs?
>>>
>>>You really don't understand how that is done, or how easy people are
>>>to trace after they have passed a check and their life is in a federal
>>>computer.
>>
>> What federal computer? You don't know the laws involved, do you. Ask
>> around. Or, when all else fails, go look it up.
>
>Tiahrt amendment.

Yup. What a fine piece of legislation, eh? Maybe we can start calling
it the "Criminal Gun Sellers' Privacy Act."

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

You belong here on RCM with the gun nutz, Captain. Once you're caught
making stupid and uninformed assertions, you start attacking the
source of information, or someone or something completely irrelevant,
like Obama.

What in the hell does he have to do with your nonsense about tracing
guns? Those laws and ATF procedures pre-date Obama by years.

As I said, you're full of crap. Anyone involved with the issue for any
length of time knows that gun traces are rarely effective at finding
the source of guns used in crimes. The laws currently on the books
nearly assure that the connections won't be found.

And you still, apparently, don't know how they work.

--
Ed Huntress

[Gunner]

Its closer to 400,000,000, with a substantial number of them weapons
in violation of the NFA etc etc.

Not all the "bring homes" from the various wars the US has sent troops
to, were turned in.

Far from it.

Lots and lots of dusty cases tucked away in hidden places in the US.

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

[Gunner]

On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 17:27:12 -0700, God's Debris <hea...@dead.net>
wrote:

Probably not a lot of 1861 Remingtons used in crime these days.

[Ed Huntress]

On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 12:40:04 -0700, Captain Armstrong

(1), (2)

> This is how we know that the
>guns Eric Holder smuggled and sold to the Mexican drug cartels were
>straw man purchases and traced back to his straw men.

(3)

>That and the
>whistle blowers were how it traced back to Holder. As for stolen guns,
>they must be reported as stolen with a serial number.

(4)

>Interviewing convicts in prison is not a valid research tool when asking
>weighted questions that carry an incentive.

(5)

>As far as straw man sales not being traceable. They are traceable to the
>person who originally bought the gun. But like all inanimate objects,
>guns don't kill people, people kill people.

(6)

>But you are right, it makes very little sense to make people register
>guns or the sale of guns. It is better to apprehend criminals and allow
>honest people to defend themselves when necessary.

(7)

>
>In 1935 Adolph Hitler said, "For the first time, a civilized nation has
>full gun registration, our streets will be safer, our police more
>efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future."

(8)

===========================================

Jesus, you are dense. You still have no idea how any of this works.
Adding insult to injury, now you're starting to make stuff up:

(1) Serial numbers do not allow ATF to trace a gun. If you don't know
why this is (and you obviously don't, because you made that stupid
assertion above), then you're too ignorant to be making assertions. A
serial number alone does NOT allow ATF to even start a trace.

(2) If the ATF finds the original purchaser, there is still no way to
tell who stole the gun, unless the criminal apprehended with it admits
that he stole it from the legal owner, or if you have other evidence.
Many of the guns claimed to be "stolen" weren't stolen at all, as
well.

(3) They found those guns because they knew who the FFL holders were
who were part of the sting. And they only found the first purchaser.

(4) There is no federal requirement for reporting a lost or stolen
firearm. Only six states and D.C. have such a requirement. In only one
state (NJ) is there a civil liability in addition to the criminal
liability to the owner if the loss isn't reported within 24 hours, and
then only for "assault weapons." In most states, there is no penalty
at all for not reporting a stolen gun of any kind.

Gun owners who are sloppy enough to let their guns get stolen
typically don't know the serial numbers, nor to they have to. If they
bought the gun in a private sale, *nobody* has any reason to know the
serial number, except possibly the last seller, varying by state. Good
luck finding him, or even remembering who he was.

(5) Read the methodology on those studies. As I said, almost all of
the other sources constitute felonies, too, and the identity of the
criminals is protected by the interview. If this produced a wide range
of responses, or if the data disagreed with what ATF reported from
crime guns actually recovered, you'd have an unprovable point of
contention. Since this data agrees almost perfectly with recovery
date, you're just trying to wiggle out of the demonstrable facts.

(6) Hey, Einstein, the idea is to dry up strawman purchases and sales,
to keep more guns out of the hands of criminals. Get it? Should I
spell it all out, or can you see the connection on your own?

(7) You're arguing to allow criminals to buy and sell guns illegally,
since you are foreclosing any practical way to reliably trace or
prosecute a strawman seller, and then you turn around and say "it's
better to apprehend criminals." Have you been taking debate lessons
from Wayne LaPierre? He has a logic problem with that, too.

(8) Bogus quote, lightweight. If you doubt it, check the so-called
"citations." Or save yourself further embarrassment by checking out
Guncite's list of bogus quotes:

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcbogus.html

Weren't you the one who was blabbering about "credibility"? And here,
you jump right into Godwin's Law, with a bogus quote to boot.

Sayonara, lightweight.

--
Ed Huntress

[JohnJohnsn]

> Don't worry, David, if you went through a Brady/NICS check, they've got one for you. :|

[Ed Huntress]

No; in ATF's own words, they only have access to theft data from FFL
holders and interstate commerce. When law enforcement agencies inquire
about theft information with ATF, they send them to NCIC.

This fact is reported in several places around the Web; I ran into it
a while back, when I was compiling my folder on gun traces. I don't
have a link but I have a PDF file titled "ATF Firearms Tracing Guide,"
which I must have picked up on the Web. Look on document page 2.

>>
>>"Only in limited circumstances will a firearm trace result indicate
>> that the firearm was reported lost or stolen. This only occurs when
>> the traced firearms was either previously reported lost or stolen to
>> ATF by a Federal firearms licensee or from a party involved with an
>> interstate shipment of firearms."
>>
>IOW; while the stolen firearm's information (including S/N) is in the
>NCIC system, it may not have been forwarded to ATF.

They CAN'T forward it to ATF. It's part of the big law-enforcement
handicapping program that the NRA has so effectively gotten passed
into legislation, part of the Gun Manufacturers' Full Employment Acts.

>>
>> The entire system was designed to thoroughly bugger the process of
>> tracing a gun. And if you do get a successful trace, you usually have
>> squat. The original purchaser rarely is liable. All he has to do is
>> claim that the gun was stolen, or that he sold it in a private sale,
>> and his receipt then will have a phony purchaser's name and
>> information.
>>
>> It's a dead-end if you're trying to track strawman sales from anyone
>> who has more than a clue about how the system works. They have
>> to be really sloppy, or really clueless, to get caught.
>>
>And exactly _HOW_ will a "universal background check" cause this to
>change?

You need a combination of laws, something like we have in NJ. We have
a permit-to-purchase for handguns and a general FOID for all guns
(there was a change in purchase requirements for long guns and
different ones for ARs; I haven't kept up, but the handgun requirement
is potent). Our initial background check, and most handgun checks, are
essentially like a Class 3 federal check: fingerprints, FBI check, and
all.

Then we have criminal liability for failing to report a theft or loss
-- 24 hours for ARs, and 36 hours for others. There also is civil
liability for failing to report an AR theft or loss.

All handgun sales and other transfers have to go through an FFL
holder, who records it like any other sale. For handguns, we have a de
facto registration based on the purchase permit. It's not *called*
registration, but it is.

I have two guns grandfathered in, before that law went into effect in
1968. Otherwise, I've gone through the procedure for a number of guns.
It's a PITA, but it's just paperwork. I have no objection to it.

>
>Since information entered into such a system constitutes a
>"registration", criminals are already exempted from being required to
>use such a back-door registration of gun owners under their 5th
>Amendment right against self-incrimination (U.S. v. Haynes).

Yeah, but so what? That's not the law you'll nail them on. You nail
them on the transfer, where it's a felony for them to acquire a gun.
The registration helps you find the criminal who sold it to them,
partly by identifying the last legal purchaser and partly by being
able to *find* that purchaser, right now, without thumbing through
paper documents. Then the purchaser can't wiggle out if you have a
theft-reporting requirement with some teeth in it.

If we had those laws across the board, a lot of other silly laws could
be eliminated.

>
>Therefore, "UBC" applies _ONLY_ to the law-abiding gun owners/
>purchasers/transferers.

Nonsense. It helps you find the criminals, in combination with the
other laws I pointed out. Once you have the means to nail the last
legal purchaser for selling or giving a gun to a criminal, you'll find
a lot of those criminals through plea bargains with the legal
purchaser.

For the rest of us, again, it's just paperwork. Which reminds me, I'd
better get going on my income taxes. <g>

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

Well, we've had those laws in NJ for 45 years. That's the cause,
right? How much longer are we supposed to wait for the effect?

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 17:27:12 -0700, God's Debris <hea...@dead.net>
wrote:

You have data on time-to-crime for crowbars? <g>

The pattern changed sometime between the '80s and the '00s. The
time-to-crime on crime guns shrank dramatically. Criminals have more
nice shiny new guns these days.

--
Ed Huntress

[David R. Birch]

You obviously missed the implication that I don't really care. It's just
one of millions.

David

[JohnJohnsn]

On Mar 17, 10:55 pm, Ed Huntress <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 14:28:44 -0700 (PDT), JohnJohnsn
> <TopCop1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 17, 9:58 am, Ed Huntress <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>> On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 01:18:56 -0700, Captain Armstrong
>>> <musc...@macho.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> An expert in the government is a guy from out of town with a brief case.
>

One of the greatest lies ever told: "I'm from the government and I'm
here to help you."

Unless they are Muslim women, that is.

>
>>>> They don't mention that TSA has never caught a terrorist, or
>>>> that their tests show that they can't find their own ass with both
>>>> hands. But...the public allows the humiliation because they are
>>>> trained to accept it.
>
>>> You don't understand how it works. You don't understand the law.
>>> You don't understand the ATF trace procedure. You don't understand
>>> why the original purchaser is basically indictment-proof in most states.
>
>>> Regarding NCIC, there is no link to NCIC records from the ATF tracking
>>> system. The only records that show up are thefts from FFL holders and
>>> shippers, not from private gun purchasers:
>
>> Uh, Ed: not only does the ATF have access to the FBI's National Crime
>> Information Center (NCIC) computer database, they use it quite
>> frequently, including placing information ON the database.
>
> No; in ATF's own words, they only have access to theft data from FFL
> holders and interstate commerce.
>

Gee, Ed; I must have missed that somehow.

So, quote _any_ official ATF source wherein they state:

1) they do not have access, nor use, the NCIC computer dtatbase
system; and/or,
2) that they do not enter descriptions, S/Ns, etc. into the NCIC
system when they discover missing, lost or stolen firearms while
conducting routine, or non-routine, inspections of Federal Fireamrs
Licensees.

>
> When law enforcement agencies inquire about theft information with ATF,
> they send them to NCIC.
>

See above.

>
> This fact is reported in several places around the Web; I ran into it
> a while back, when I was compiling my folder on gun traces.
>

Thanks for this res gestae admission of spending copius amount of time
on your efforts at spreading gun control information/misinformation
across the web and/or Usenet, Ed.

Of course, we had already made that determination for ourselves based
on your continuing conduct here in T.P.G.

>
> I don't have a link but I have a PDF file titled "ATF Firearms Tracing Guide,"
> which I must have picked up on the Web. Look on document page 2.
>

First off; if you believe that the ATF is fully truthful about their
day-to-day operations, let me direct you to "Operation Fast and
Firuous" and "Operation Fearless Distributing" as just two examples of
ATF misfeasance, malfeasance and total incompetence.

Secondly: http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-3312-13.pdf

Third: before I spent more than twenty years in law enforcement, I
spent eight years in the Title II, Class 2 firearms manufacturing
business, wherein I interacted with numerous of those "not-quite-as-
honest-as-you-believe" ATF "Special Agents:" right up to, and
including then-Firearms Technology Branch chief , and LSOS, Edward
Owen, so don't think you know more about TF that I do, Ed; as you
DON'T.

>
>>>"Only in limited circumstances will a firearm trace result indicate
>>> that the firearm was reported lost or stolen. This only occurs when
>>> the traced firearms was either previously reported lost or stolen to
>>> ATF by a Federal firearms licensee or from a party involved with an
>>> interstate shipment of firearms."
>
>> IOW; while the stolen firearm's information (including S/N) is in the
>> NCIC system, it may not have been forwarded to ATF.
>
> They CAN'T forward it to ATF. It's part of the big law-enforcement
> handicapping program that the NRA has so effectively gotten passed
> into legislation, part of the Gun Manufacturers' Full Employment Acts.
>

Prove it, Ed.

>
>>> The entire system was designed to thoroughly bugger the process of
>>> tracing a gun. And if you do get a successful trace, you usually have
>>> squat. The original purchaser rarely is liable. All he has to do is
>>> claim that the gun was stolen, or that he sold it in a private sale,
>>> and his receipt then will have a phony purchaser's name and
>>> information.
>
>>> It's a dead-end if you're trying to track strawman sales from anyone
>>> who has more than a clue about how the system works. They have
>>> to be really sloppy, or really clueless, to get caught.
>
>> And exactly _HOW_ will a "universal background check" cause this to
>> change?
>
> You need a combination of laws, something like we have in NJ.
>

Ah, yes: "crime-free New Joosey."

Oh. look: NJ is "purple":

Firearms murders as % of all murders: 65-80

Gun crime per 100K State US average
2011
Murders 3.07 2.75
Robberies 49.87 39.25
"In New Jersey there were 269 firearms murders in 2011 - a change of
+9$ since 2010."
"In New Jersey in 2011 there were 379 homicides, 71% involved guns."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2011/sep/27/gun-crime-map-statistics

Well; at least you're below those two "gun control nirvanas": D.C. and
IL (brown 80-95%).

And, gee, Ed: look at us here in "Shall Issue" (CHLs) Texas: 35-50%:
so much for the anti-concealed carry "doom & gloom'ers". ;)

Now:

Q: Why does New Jersey have the most toxic waste dumps, while
California has the most lawyers?
A: New Jersey had first choice.

Q: Why is New Jersey called "The Garden State"?
-Victor Melling
A: Because it's too hard to fit "Oil and Petrochemical Refinery State"
on a license plate?
-FBISA Gracie Hart
:)

>
> We have a permit-to-purchase for handguns and a general FOID for all
> guns (there was a change in purchase requirements for long guns and

> different ones for ARs...
>
IOW, "equal protection uder the law" doesn't exist in "The Garden
State."

Thanks for that res gestae admission, Ed.
>
> ...I haven't kept up, but the handgun requirement is potent).

> Our initial background check, and most handgun checks,
> are essentially like a Class 3 federal check: fingerprints,
> FBI check, and all.
>

And yet gun-related crime is on the upswing in NJ (see below).

>
> Then we have criminal liability for failing to report a theft or loss
> -- 24 hours for ARs, and 36 hours for others. There also is civil
> liability for failing to report an AR theft or loss.
>

Again; all intended to punish the innocent victims of crime.

And you brag on it! :[

>
> All handgun sales and other transfers have to go through an FFL
> holder, who records it like any other sale. For handguns, we have
> a de facto registration based on the purchase permit.
> It's not *called* registration, but it is.
>

And that's what the anti-gunners in Congress want for all America.

>
> I have two guns grandfathered in, before that law went into effect in
>1968. Otherwise, I've gone through the procedure for a number of guns.
> It's a PITA, but it's just paperwork. I have no objection to it.
>

And the Jews in Germany and Nazi-controlled other countries failed to
"object" to Hitler's implementation of his "Final Solution to the
Jewish `Question'" -- until it was too late!

Mnay firearms owners and advocates do not choose to sit idly by while
gun controllers, both up-front and "hiding behind the curtain"
<cough>Sonderkommando George Soros<cough> push for total disarmament
of the Proletariat.

>
>>Since information entered into such a system constitutes a
>>"registration", criminals are already exempted from being required
>> to use such a back-door registration of gun owners under their 5th
>>Amendment right against self-incrimination (U.S. v. Haynes).
>
> Yeah, but so what? That's not the law you'll nail them on. You nail
> them on the transfer, where it's a felony for them to acquire a gun.
>

Sorry to disappoint you on that "thought," Ed; but the US Attorneys'
history on that isn't as "bright and cheery" on that as you might
think it is.

I took a slam-dunk "Felon in Possession of a Firearm" case to the USA/
NT/Dallas Div. and he refused to prosecute since the "perp" had
already been given a "hand-slap" (probation) conviction by the state.

This in light of the feds prosecuting Stacy Koon, et al., _after_ they
had been found Not Guilty in state court in the Rodney King incident.

Tends to undermine confidence in "the system." :[

>
> The registration helps you find the criminal who sold it to them,
> partly by identifying the last legal purchaser and partly by being
> able to *find* that purchaser, right now, without thumbing through
> paper documents. Then the purchaser can't wiggle out if you have
> a theft-reporting requirement with some teeth in it.
>

Again: punishing the victim of the crime.

>
> If we had those laws across the board, a lot of other silly laws could
> be eliminated.
>

Care to point out any gun control laws that HAVE been "eliminated" in
the past forty-five years, Ed?

Gun control laws are like roaches: everpresent and all-reproductive.

>
>> Therefore, "UBC" applies _ONLY_ to the law-abiding gun owners/
>> purchasers/transferers.
>
> Nonsense. It helps you find the criminals, in combination with the
> other laws I pointed out. Once you have the means to nail the last
> legal purchaser for selling or giving a gun to a criminal, you'll find
> a lot of those criminals through plea bargains with the legal
> purchaser.
>

You brag about how well "the system" works in NJ: provide documentable
evidence to back up that claim.

>
> For the rest of us, again, it's just paperwork.
> Which reminds me, I'd better get going on my income taxes. <g>
>

Again; a Democrat-created thing (16th Amendment).

And, BTW: the "top tax rate" back then was a whopping 7% under
Republican William Howard Taft; but jumped to 77% under Democrat
Woodrow Wilson:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/Historical_Mariginal_Tax_Rate_for_Highest_and_Lowest_Income_Earners.jpg

---

“What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned
from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of
resistance?”
--Thomas Jefferson

[deep]

On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 06:18:57 -0700 (PDT), JohnJohnsn
<TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>
>So, quote _any_ official ATF source wherein they state:
>
>1) they do not have access, nor use, the NCIC computer dtatbase
>system; and/or,
>2) that they do not enter descriptions, S/Ns, etc. into the NCIC
>system when they discover missing, lost or stolen firearms while
>conducting routine, or non-routine, inspections of Federal Fireamrs
>Licensees.

You don't know any of those things so you're talking out yer ass once
again.

>>

[Stormin Mormon]

Now they will know right where to look.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"David R. Birch" <dbi...@wi.rr.com>
wrote in message news:ki6jg...@news4.newsguy.com...

[JohnJohnsn]

We already know how badly your "reading compression" is, Scheißekopf;
no need to further demonstrate it here.

You "snipped" the context which shows the above to be a challenge to
Ed Huntress; that HE provide evidence of the above, as he asserted
earlier in this Thread.

[Ed Huntress]

Apparently so.

>
>So, quote _any_ official ATF source wherein they state:
>
>1) they do not have access, nor use, the NCIC computer dtatbase
>system; and/or,
>2) that they do not enter descriptions, S/Ns, etc. into the NCIC
>system when they discover missing, lost or stolen firearms while
>conducting routine, or non-routine, inspections of Federal Fireamrs
>Licensees.

Uh, Johnson, that's exactly what I said, and what any source will tell
you. Do you pay attention to what you quote before you post it?

>>
>> When law enforcement agencies inquire about theft information with ATF,
>> they send them to NCIC.
>>
>See above.

Yeah, I see it. Now what?

>>
>> This fact is reported in several places around the Web; I ran into it
>> a while back, when I was compiling my folder on gun traces.
>>
>Thanks for this res gestae admission of spending copius amount of time
>on your efforts at spreading gun control information/misinformation
>across the web and/or Usenet, Ed.

I have spent a lot of time on this, particularly in the early '90s,
when I was active with our NRA affiliate, fighting AR bans. Since then
I've maintained an interest.

>
>Of course, we had already made that determination for ourselves based
>on your continuing conduct here in T.P.G.

I'm sure "we" have, as has nearly everyone who has ever tried to hold
a conversation with you.

>>
>> I don't have a link but I have a PDF file titled "ATF Firearms Tracing Guide,"
>> which I must have picked up on the Web. Look on document page 2.
>>
>First off; if you believe that the ATF is fully truthful about their
>day-to-day operations, let me direct you to "Operation Fast and
>Firuous" and "Operation Fearless Distributing" as just two examples of
>ATF misfeasance, malfeasance and total incompetence.
>
>Secondly: http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-3312-13.pdf
>
>Third: before I spent more than twenty years in law enforcement, I
>spent eight years in the Title II, Class 2 firearms manufacturing
>business, wherein I interacted with numerous of those "not-quite-as-
>honest-as-you-believe" ATF "Special Agents:" right up to, and
>including then-Firearms Technology Branch chief , and LSOS, Edward
>Owen, so don't think you know more about TF that I do, Ed; as you
>DON'T.

Gee, over 20 years in law enforcement? And here, I remember that you
were a private-sector guy:

"I worked in the private sector for three-fourths of my life, Fool;
how about you?"

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.politics/lfovhlNCCQU/8lix9L9ztmYJ

Let's do that arithmetic...hmmm...20 years in law enforcement, 3/4 of
your life in the private sector Jeez, Johnson, that means that even if
you started working at age 10, you must be at least 120 years old!
d8-)

Or was your law-enforcement work of the rent-a-cop variety?

Why don't you clear that up for us before we go any further? Before I
waste another minute here, it would be helpful to know what degree of
integrity we're dealing with.

--
Ed Huntress

>>
>>>>"Only in limited circumstances will a firearm trace result indicate
>>>> that the firearm was reported lost or stolen. This only occurs when
>>>> the traced firearms was either previously reported lost or stolen to
>>>> ATF by a Federal firearms licensee or from a party involved with an
>>>> interstate shipment of firearms."
>>
>>> IOW; while the stolen firearm's information (including S/N) is in the
>>> NCIC system, it may not have been forwarded to ATF.
>>
>> They CAN'T forward it to ATF. It's part of the big law-enforcement
>> handicapping program that the NRA has so effectively gotten passed
>> into legislation, part of the Gun Manufacturers' Full Employment Acts.
>>
>Prove it, Ed.

Prove what?

[RD Sandman]

Ed Huntress <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in

news:4fpck8d8o85ouimk2...@4ax.com:

Yes, I didn't know if you saw the first one at the time I sent this.

[RD Sandman]

Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:60sck8hru7lgun041...@4ax.com:

I can justify the figures for my estimate of 310 million I can't do it
for your estimate of 400 million. Where I got mine from a report by the
ATF where they estimated that there 223 million guns available in the US
in 1992. Sonce then, guns have been manufactured and sold at numbers
between 3.5 and 5.5 million per year. From there is a small exercise in
math to arrive where I am at. 3.5 million per year for 20 years is 70
million guns. 5.5 million per year for 20 years is 110 million guns.
223 million plus 70 million is 293 million. 223 million plus 110 million
is 333 million. 310 million is right in between them.

> Not all the "bring homes" from the various wars the US has sent troops
> to, were turned in.
>
> Far from it.
>
> Lots and lots of dusty cases tucked away in hidden places in the US.

Yep, but no way to show how many there are or to back up the number.

[RD Sandman]

"David R. Birch" <dbi...@wi.rr.com> wrote in

news:ki5ot...@news4.newsguy.com:

Excuse me, but what do you do about privacy? You want any Tom, Dick or
Harry to run a background check on you any time they feel like it?

[RD Sandman]

"David R. Birch" <dbi...@wi.rr.com> wrote in
news:ki5oq...@news4.newsguy.com:

I simply don't feel that it is any of their business if I have a gun or
ten of them unless I have been adjudicated as a prohibited possessor.
Why should they have more information on me than they do on the people
who are the real problem?

[RD Sandman]

Ed Huntress <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in

news:7nqck8pcueomq8red...@4ax.com:

Just which of Obama's 23 proposals do you think will do that?

Assault weapons are used if very few crimes. Last year, from what I
understand, 373 homicides were committed with a rifle. An assault weapon
would be a subset from that.

Hi-cap magazines are standard magazines in some firearms and are
manufacturer options in many others. Glock 9mm for example all have a 33
round magazine as an option from the manufacturer. No need to go third
party.

Universal background check is fine for those who go through it. However
that wouldn't include the black market or straw purchases.

>>IMHO, aiming many of the gun laws being proposed at the honest gun
>>owner is like trying to develop a pill for men to relieve menstrual
>>cramps.
>
> The laws aren't proposed "at the honest gun owner." They're proposed
> to keep DIShonest people from getting guns.

And just how will they do that? Will they stop straw purchases? Theft?
What about the 310 million guns already out there that no one knows where
they are? How do you expect to find them? Door to door searches?

>>>>>> , leaving a paper trail and witness.
>>>>
>>>>Everyone knows a girlfriend or wife is an untraceable entity, and of
>>>>course they would never rat out a boy friend or husband, much less
>>>>testify in court.
>>>>
>>>>> What paper trail? You mean the 4473's? HAHAHAHAhahahoho..ho...
>>>>
>>>>Wait until Obama sends his boys to knock on your door. Give them the
>>>>big "Ho ho ho."
>>>
>>> How would they find me? The NRA has made sure that it's so
>>> difficult, they hardly ever even try.
>>
>>What the NRA is doing in that regard, I fully support. I am flat out
>>against a registration database. It is no one's business whether or
>>not I own a firearm or how many unless I have been convicted of a
>>felony and become a prohibited possessor.
>
> Ok, so when people are killed by straw-purchased guns, or from a bogus
> private sale, we'll just start calling them "collateral damage."

Nope, you go after those who broke the laws. I haven't. Have you?

It's
> a term we Americans have become quite comfortable with, anyway.
> There's no reason it shouldn't apply to 6-year-olds caught in a
> gangland crossfire, is there?

Then go after those members in the gang and hand their asses. Those with
felony convictions should lose some of their privacy rights before I do.

> All in the name of protecting RD's privacy.

No, it is the name of privacy and not being any of your or the ATF's
business if I own a gun or not. Why should a convicted felon have more
right of privacy than I do?

>>> Go ahead, tell us about the "paper trail," and about the
>>> requirements to keep track of your guns. There is no paper trail,
>>> and there are no requirements, in most of the US, to keep track of
>>> your guns.
>>
>>The paper trail ends at the first legal purchaser from the dealer.
>
> Yup. Captain Armstrong doesn't seem to realize that.
>
>>
>>>>> So what are you going to do, start by narrowing your list down to
>>>>> a thousand or so FFLs?
>>>>
>>>>You really don't understand how that is done, or how easy people are
>>>>to trace after they have passed a check and their life is in a
>>>>federal computer.
>>>
>>> What federal computer? You don't know the laws involved, do you. Ask
>>> around. Or, when all else fails, go look it up.
>>
>>Tiahrt amendment.
>
> Yup. What a fine piece of legislation, eh? Maybe we can start calling
> it the "Criminal Gun Sellers' Privacy Act."

Not from law enforcement.....just from being used like Bloomberg wants
to. Law enforcement still has access to it just not in an online
database. Now, if it was available in that database just what pursuit
would be the easiest for it to be put to? There is nothing in there to
tie any of those guns to criminals. See Haynes. There are no ballistics
that can be matched. Of course, that direction has been a failure
anyway. See the California ballistics testing on cases. Microstamping
has proven to be a failure and won't work with revolvers either....just
like casing ballistics.

[RD Sandman]

Ed Huntress <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in

news:gv4dk85jgiaov76bj...@4ax.com:

There are more shiny, new guns to be straw purchased or stolen these
days. The day when the most common gun used in crime is a six shot .38
revolver is long gone.

[Gunner]

On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 13:54:04 -0500, RD Sandman

Ayup. Works for me!!

<VBG>

[Gunner]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Tracing_Center

"irearms Tracing System (FTS).
The ATF Firearms Tracing System (FTS) within the National Tracing
Center (NTC) contains firearm tracing information from all traces
performed since 1989. In 2003, over 460,000 Multiple Firearm Sales
reports (ATF F 3310.4 - a registration record with specific firearms
and owner name and address) had been entered into the system, and was
increasing by about 140,000 per year. Further, all guns "suspected" as
being used for criminal purposes, as well over 1.2 million (in 2002)
detail results from all traces (which includes Names and Addresses of
all known sellers and purchasers) had been entered. The system
includes data manually collected from Out-of-Business records and
entered into the tracing system by ATF personnel. ATF reports over 400
million firearms transaction records in the Firearms Tracing System -"

Anyone here ever been frank when asked over the phone how many guns
they owned in a poll?

Nobody ever answers such polls truthfully.

[Ed Huntress]

On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 13:44:41 -0700, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

You mean, like the self-reported poll conducted by Gary Kleck and Marc
Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of
Self-Defense with a Gun"?

They found from that survey that guns were used in defense up to 2.5
million times per year. In one aspect of their study, they found that
more women had prevented rapes by drawing a gun than all of the rapes
reported in the United States in one year. <g>

Self-reported polls of event incidences are very difficult to do well.
You need in-depth sample testing and careful use of statistical
methodology. Kleck and Gertz fell down on both counts.

Sample testing will allow you to tune out untruthful answers: you take
a random selection of your random sample, and conduct in-person
interviews, or use other measures of the actual events, to correct
bias in your sample.

ATF has some actual, projectible event data to correct any surveys
done by DOJ or researchers who know what they're doing. Kleck and
Gertz did not.

--
Ed Huntress

[JohnJohnsn]

On Mar 18, 1:19 pm, Ed "Insidious Force for Gun Control" Huntress

<huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 06:18:57 -0700 (PDT), JohnJohnsn

> <TopCop1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 17, 10:55 pm, Ed Huntress <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>> On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 14:28:44 -0700 (PDT), JohnJohnsn
>>> <TopCop1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>> On Mar 17, 9:58 am, Ed Huntress <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>

<snip>

>
>>>>> Regarding NCIC, there is no link to NCIC records from the ATF
>>>>> tracking system. The only records that show up are thefts from
>>>>> FFL holders and shippers, not from private gun purchasers:
>
>>>> Uh, Ed: not only does the ATF have access to the FBI's National
>>>> Crime Information Center (NCIC) computer database, they use it
>>>> quite frequently, including placing information ON the database.
>

Since the above was obviously above your "reading compression"
capabilities, think "ATF finds guns missing from FFL, enters the data
in _their_own_ database, then concurrently enters it into the NCIC
national database accessable to all LE agencies registered with NCIC."

There; does that help?

Oh, BTW: when I was constable I registered my office with NCIC and,
therefore, could access and add to the national database; but you are
trying to claim that ATF; another _federal_ LEA, _can't_ (or doesn't)
have the same access?!?!?

Get real, ED!

>
>>> No; in ATF's own words, they only have access to theft data from
>>> FFL holders and interstate commerce.
>
>> Gee, Ed; I must have missed that somehow.
>
> Apparently so.
>

Then where did you post it?

>
>> So, quote _any_ official ATF source wherein they state:
>
>> 1) they do not have access, nor use, the NCIC computer dtatbase
>> system; and/or,
>> 2) that they do not enter descriptions, S/Ns, etc. into the NCIC
>> system when they discover missing, lost or stolen firearms while
>> conducting routine, or non-routine, inspections of Federal Fireamrs
>> Licensees.
>

> Uh, Johnson, that's exactly what I said...
>
Despite your delusions of grandeur, you are NOT an "official ATF
source."
>
> ...and what any source will tell you.
>
What "any source"?

>
> Do you pay attention to what you quote before you post it?
>

Still don't see your "official ATF source," Ed.

>
>>> When law enforcement agencies inquire about theft information
>>> with ATF, they send them to NCIC.
>
>> See above.
>
> Yeah, I see it. Now what?
>
>>> This fact is reported in several places around the Web; I ran into
>>> it a while back, when I was compiling my folder on gun traces.
>
>> Thanks for this res gestae admission of spending copius amount of
>> time on your efforts at spreading gun control information/misinformation
>> across the web and/or Usenet, Ed.
>
> I have spent a lot of time on this, particularly in the early '90s,
> when I was active with our NRA affiliate, fighting AR bans.
>

I fought the machine gun ban back in `86; but all you self-styled "pro-
gunners" couldn't seem to see that it was just a start down the
"slippery slope" of overall gun banning steps by the anti-gunners and
allowed we NFA'ers to go down the tubes.

So look where we are now. :[

>
> Since then I've maintained an interest.
>

So you've claimed, Ed; but all your postings come across as anti-gun.

>
>> Of course, we had already made that determination for ourselves based
>> on your continuing conduct here in T.P.G.
>
> I'm sure "we" have, as has nearly everyone who has ever tried to hold
> a conversation with you.
>

Ed; I am _very_ anti-gun control and do not ever want to give `em even
an inch, while people like you seem to be more than willing to give in
at every opportunity.

>
>>> I don't have a link but I have a PDF file titled "ATF Firearms Tracing Guide,"
>>> which I must have picked up on the Web. Look on document page 2.
>
>> First off; if you believe that the ATF is fully truthful about their
>> day-to-day operations, let me direct you to "Operation Fast and
>> Firuous" and "Operation Fearless Distributing" as just two examples of
>> ATF misfeasance, malfeasance and total incompetence.
>
>> Secondly: http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-3312-13.pdf
>
>> Third: before I spent more than twenty years in law enforcement,
>> I spent eight years in the Title II, Class 2 firearms manufacturing
>> business, wherein I interacted with numerous of those "not-quite-as-
>> honest-as-you-believe" ATF "Special Agents:" right up to, and
>> including then-Firearms Technology Branch chief , and LSOS, Ed

>> Owen, so don't think you know more about TF that I do, Ed; as you
>> DON'T.
>
> Gee, over 20 years in law enforcement? And here, I remember that you
> were a private-sector guy:
>
> "I worked in the private sector for three-fourths of my life, Fool;
> how about you?"
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.politics/lfovhlNCCQU/8lix9L9ztmYJ
>
> Let's do that arithmetic...hmmm...20 years in law enforcement, 3/4 of
> your life in the private sector Jeez, Johnson, that means that even if
> you started working at age 10, you must be at least 120 years old!
> d8-)
>
> Or was your law-enforcement work of the rent-a-cop variety?
>
> Why don't you clear that up for us before we go any further? Before I
> waste another minute here, it would be helpful to know what degree
> of integrity we're dealing with.
>

Well, Ed; guess you've never heard of a person having two )or more)
simultaneous careers at the same time.

At the same time I was in law enforcement I also was in the gun
business and the automotive busness simultaneously. When I wasn't
"policing" I was either "twisting wrenches" or "building machine
guns" (or SBSs or AOWs). There was even some auto racing thrown into
the mix (set four National Records back in the day, too).

After leaving full-time public law enforcement (police, sheriff,
constable) I moved into the private security sector as a Personal
Protection Officer (a/k/a armed bodyguard) while remaining in the
public LE arena on a part-time basis.

Hell, Ed: I was "multi-tasking" _long_before the personal computer era
came to pass.

That's enough explanation, Ed, as it's obvious that you are
"mathematically challenged" here.

“I am concerned for the security of our great Nation; not so much
because of any threat from

without, but because of the insidious forces working from within.”
– General Douglas MacArthur
>
>> “What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not

[David R. Birch]

On 3/18/2013 1:55 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
> "David R. Birch" <dbi...@wi.rr.com> wrote in
> news:ki5ot...@news4.newsguy.com:
>
>> On 3/17/2013 6:27 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>> "David R. Birch" <dbi...@wi.rr.com> wrote in
>>
>>>> Registration of what? All that is registered is that John Smith wants
>>>> to know if it is legal to sell a firearm to Jane Doe.
>>>>
>>>> When he has the positive results of the check, the sale may proceed.
>>>> Or not.
>>>>
>>>> No need to ID the gun or guns, or even if a sale took place.
>>>
>>> The dealer has to ID the gun as it is in his log and if that BGC is
>>> extended to the civilian path it will probably be via an FFL. That is
>>> the easiest way to do it since civilians cannot access NICS to run the
>>> check.
>>
>> Easier to change the NICS so any citizen can access it.
>
>
> Excuse me, but what do you do about privacy? You want any Tom, Dick or
> Harry to run a background check on you any time they feel like it?

So they run a background check and find out I can legally buy a gun.

So what?

David

[David R. Birch]

How does a BGC tell them whether you own a gun?

David

[RD Sandman]

"David R. Birch" <dbi...@wi.rr.com> wrote in

news:ki805...@news6.newsguy.com:

Or find out you can't but it is in error. Leads to a lot of innuendo and
snooping since the party that looked it up doesn't know it is an error.

It is simply much easier to use the existing system. My concern is
whether or not the federal government really has the constitutional
authority to monitor private sales of properties within a state. The
Commerce Clause is about interstate sales, not intrastate ones.

[RD Sandman]

"David R. Birch" <dbi...@wi.rr.com> wrote in

news:ki807...@news6.newsguy.com:

If they keep a record of it it will give them an idea, don't you think?
Anyway my comment about what is or isn't their business was addressing
more than just a background check. It was also addressing (as some in
here want) a database of all 4473s for the ease of ATF in tracing
weapons. Only takes a blink to duplicate a database.

[Gunner]

Ayup. Its now chrome plated 9mms and 380s.

[Gunner]

Id be very happy with a computer address that one could access from
any computer or cell phone that one simply enters the buyers name, dob
and social security number and the data base then displays "eligible"
or "ineligable" to purchase.

With a "no match" to indicate something is wrong with the data
entered.

And have a congressional mandate that the data was not saved in cache
for more than say...6 hours and not retransmitted to any other data
base.

What could be simpler and meet fully the criteria of "background
check"?

[Gunner]

On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 16:16:44 -0500, "David R. Birch"

Blink blink...blink. It shows that you were purchasing one.

Duh!

[Scout]

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA1879294C...@216.196.121.131...

Yep, and given employers are now checking social media and other
cites......what do you want to bet they would check this database if they
could and figure they won't hire you if it comes back you're prohibited. You
don't know why you didn't get the job, you just know you didn't. For people
that don't buy guns they might never figure out why they aren't getting the
jobs they are applying for because they would never know that NICS is
rejecting them.

> It is simply much easier to use the existing system. My concern is
> whether or not the federal government really has the constitutional
> authority to monitor private sales of properties within a state.

I would tend to say not.

> The
> Commerce Clause is about interstate sales, not intrastate ones.

Yep, and the fact that SCOTUS has discovered a right to privacy and it's
possibly they might find that such monitoring violates that.

[Scout]

"Gunner" <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c64fk858udrj4lvjk...@4ax.com...

Wow, what a great way to get 95% of the information you need to steal
someone's identity.

Are you really sure you would want to give a stranger this information?